Not all humans inherently deserve rights just because they are human. Think of people like Hiter, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the dozens of other evil people. No one would reasonably think they deserve sympathy, because of what they chose to do.
If your evil enough to commit such a heinous act as child rape, I don’t see any legitimate reason why that person should deserve any sort of sympathy.
Subconsciously everyone agrees on this to some extent. Look at prisons, (depending on the crime) they remove your right to vote, own a gun, even walk outside, and have certain jobs.
The reason I believed my take is controversial is because of how I think those pedos would lose their rights. I believe people as evil as them aren’t people at all. They are simply containers of flesh with a human face, and should be seen as such. I have no issue with the idea they should be used as slaves and test subjects. Arguably this would actually benefit humanity (especially in terms of medicine) because now instead of risking the lives of innocent people like doctors or everyday Joe’s, we could use them to see if the experimental drug has any side effects. Honestly, what are they going to do? Revoke consent? I wonder of the child they raped got that same privilege…
I’m sure this goes without saying but the person would have to be caught red-handed with undeniable proof to be subjected to this
Read this, lost 2 IQ points.
Only 2?
I think a number of books on civics fell out of my head and burst into flame.
Creating a class of people who don’t have rights, no matter what they’ve done to “deserve” it, just creates a class that unsavory people can use as a dumping ground for their enemies. Antifa is all pedophiles now. Pro-vaccine people? Also all pedophiles. Democrats? Believe it or not, pedophiles.
Even if you somehow had a work force to deal with this population that was made up entirely of angels (which, good luck), it is impossible to prevent innocent people from being subjected to it. There is no such thing as a legal system that has never falsely convicted someone, either from faulty evidence or malfeasance.
Queer people in particular have also been victims of false accusations of pedophilia, both historically and recently. You can’t just ignore that there is a rabidly bigoted segment of the US that would not rest until all queer people got classified as pedophiles.
Tl;dr: unsurprisingly your revenge fantasy has bad real world implications
Possibly the only legitimate counter I’ve read so far
Not all humans inherently deserve rights just because they are human.
And you’re immediately wrong.
The exact thing that distinguishes rights is that they’re universally held.
If they can be granted or withheld, then they’re not rights - they’re privileges.
Everything is a privilege, the only reason we have rights is because governments allow it, which means if tomorrow they decided rights don’t exist, then they don’t exist
It’s your last sentence that perfectly points out the flaw in your logic. There will always be variations on your “perfect pedo” that you’ve created in your head that would warrant some consideration regarding punishments and rights.
Being a person that was molested as a child, I find you just choosing one type of predator absurd and dismissive of every other victim that doesn’t fall into your “special victim” classification. I don’t think the person that offended against me was any worse or better than someone that did it to an adult or committed elder abuse, etc.
There will always be variations on your “perfect pedo” that you’ve created in your head that would warrant some consideration regarding punishments and rights.
Well yes, this is all a hypothetical, I’m not a lawyer or going to write a whole 300 page bill on the ins and outs so yes there’s some assumptions that need to be made
I find you just choosing one type of predator absurd and dismissive of every other victim that doesn’t fall into your “special victim” classification.
I wasn’t dismissing other victims all rape is evil and abhorrent, but rape against a child who’s brain isn’t developed and doesnt have a strong foundation of the world is especially cruel
I wasn’t dismissing other victims all rape is evil and abhorrent, but rape against a child who’s brain isn’t developed and doesnt have a strong foundation of the world is especially cruel
I disagree with you there. It’s all equally cruel. In my case, my young age allowed me to recover from something that perhaps I wouldn’t have as an adult. If it had to happen, I’m glad it happened at the age(8ish or so) that it did.
I’m glad you were able to recover, and I’m genuinely sorry you had to go through that
Your right, maybe it’s all equally evil
Not all humans inherently deserve rights just because they are human. Think of people like Hiter, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the dozens of other evil people. No one would reasonably think they deserve sympathy, because of what they chose to do.
Nice pivot. Your point is about rights, but in your argument you equate that with sympathy.
Even a person who doesn’t deserve sympathy deserves, or rather has human rights – even when they’re violated.Nice pivot. Your point is about rights, but in your argument you equate that with sympathy.
When you boil it down, that’s what rights are, government sympathy. The government feels sympathy to its citizens so it trys to protect them by giving them rights. Take North Korea for example, that dictator has no sympathy and in turn the people have no nights. If tomorrow the government said we don’t have rights, then what are we going to do about it?
Even a person who doesn’t deserve sympathy deserves, or rather has human rights
Using this logic the prison system is a violation of rights. If prisoners still deserve to have rights then why can’t they vote, or own a gun? The prison system is a direct violation of a human’s rights yet everyone agrees we need it to have a civil society
Taking away a prisoner’s right to vote is wrong (not to mention dangerous for a democracy) and not everyone agrees with it.
Owning a gun isn’t a human right.And a government is an entity made up of rules and thousands of people who constantly change. It can’t feel sympathy towards individuals.
Anyway, you’re quick to claim that “everyone agrees” or “no one would reasonably believe” the points you are for or against, but you have an incredibly US-centric view, and not even half the US citizens would agree with you.
Taking away a prisoner’s right to vote is wrong
Yet it still happens because rights are given by government, not inherented by birth
Owning a gun isn’t a human right
It is in America, which further proves my point that this idea of Rights being deserved and internationally had is flawed. Your rights are given to you by your country. Not God, or the universe, or society. Rights are a human construct that can be taken away at any moment for any reason
I understand if you think this isn’t fair, your entitled to your opinion, but I simply disagree on it, I believe in an eye for an eye.
And a government is an entity made up of rules and thousands of people who constantly change. It can’t feel sympathy towards individuals.
You say a government is made up of people… but also say it can’t feel sympathy? So then who creates the laws and decides what’s illegal? If governments can’t have sympathy then why is searching someone’s house without a warrant illegal? You could make the argument that if you have nothing to hide why can’t they search? Yet we all understand this to be wrong because we and the people who make laws (who made up government) have sympathy.
Forgot to respond to this
but you have an incredibly US-centric view, and not even half the US citizens would agree with you.
Which is also wrong.
In 2016 Indonesia passed a law authorising chemical castration
The Czech Republic still uses surgical castration regularly
Russia, Poland, and South Korea still use chemical castration as a preventative measure.
So no. This isn’t “American centric”. You people are just defending child rapists.
Tell me you’re a teenager without saying those words exactly.
Check.
How do you feel this applies to non-acting pedophiles?
I think it’s easier to make this kind of opinion about child abusers or rapists, but there are pedophiles who are aware of their problem and seek assistance in dealing with it in a way that avoids harming any children, e.g. therapeutic solutions. Does your judgement apply to them in the same way?
If no one is being harmed and they are seeking help then no this wouldnt apply
How could families & or Carers even know if someone was a “N.A.P” when and or if the potential threat is right there chatting to their 8 y.o in the front yard or park with a parked car nearby? Should they carry a neon sign atop their do, “Non convicted Pedo, means no harm!” Silly thing to say unless…
Nobody:
Dude who spends a ton of time world building pedophiles:
Ideally it should always be extremely difficult and expensive, and certainly not of economic benefit, to take basic rights away from people, otherwise that line you’ve staked out will move relentlessly to include more and more “inhuman” people. As we know, because we don’t live in an ideal world.
But the other problem is what do you think your idea does to the scientists and slave owners and everyone else with knowledge of it? A disgusting idea doesn’t get less disgusting just by applying it to only a few. This is just degrading to everyone involved, and erodes compassion on all sides.
People who make nonsensical claims like this, with utter ignorance of the meanings of the words they’re using, don’t deserve any rights whatsoever.
Like the sound of that?
What words did I misuse exactly?
You react violently like the people you despise (pedos or not). I do believe it’s a psychopathic behavior that your should be cured, and meanwhile, your rights should be revoked as long as you have those bursts of anger.
Do you still agree with what you wrote?
If difference is my “violence” wouldn’t exist if pedophiles kept themselves under control
I’m not going out and actively harming innocent people for no reason. They’ve done something that deserves to be punished
No. There’s where you’re wrong.
Pedophile is a state of existence, much like gay. It’s a sexual attraction NOT an action. A pedophile doesn’t choose to be sexually attracted to children, any more than a gay person chooses to be gay. (The obvious difference is that gay people that are adults can consent; there can be no moral, ethical, or legal relationship with a child.)
What you’re looking for a child molester. Not all pedophiles are child molesters. Not all people that molest children at pedophiles; many are likely not, but are simply opportunistic sexual predators attacking the most vulnerable population.
Beyond that, 100+ years of psychology research has demonstrated that punishment is a very poor deterrent to behaviour. If you want to change the way people act, then you need to reform behaviour, rather than punishing it. But it’s clear that you don’t care about actually solving the problem, you just want revenge.
What you’re looking for a child molester.
Ill give you that one, I was specifically mentioning child molesters and rapist. Albeit most people use the 2 interchangeably
but are simply opportunistic sexual predators attacking the most vulnerable population.
This furthers my reason for having no sympathy for them. They are such animals that they only think about themselves, and will happily look the other direction when someone gets hurt directly because of them. So why should I care when they get hurt because of their own selfish actions?
I want to quote you for a second “Pedophile is a state of existence, much like gay. It’s a sexual attraction NOT an action. A pedophile doesn’t choose to be sexually attracted to children, any more than a gay person chooses to be gay” so you said yourself these people can not be changed. They are born like this and will always be like this. You said it yourself, there literally is no change for them. Sure therapy can help them BEFORE they act. But after the damage is done it’s clear that help won’t stop them.
you just want revenge
How is this a problem exactly? Do you not think people (especially child rapists) should be punished for their crimes? Because that’s a type of revenge. The fact is while punishment my not be the best at reform, you’ve already made it clear these people are born this way, and there is no reform for them. If the people who are attracted to children get help BEFORE they act and harm an innocent person then that’s a different story, they understand they have a problem and are working to fix it. But someone who rapes a child doesn’t have this same mindset and understanding. They are selfish psychopaths with no care except themselves and would likely do it again since nothing morally stopped them the first time.
Do you not think people (especially child rapists) should be punished for their crimes?
No, I don’t. Punishment doesn’t change behaviour. I think that when people offend against other people, they should be required to do what they can to make things right, and they should change how they act in the future. In many cases–not just talking about child sexual assualt–‘making things right’ means monetary damages, but it could also be, for instance, community service. Changing behaviour for the future requires things like therapy, and requires buy-in from the offender. That is, the person that’s committed the offense has to want to change. Punishing people doesn’t do any of that; in fact, it’s more likely to harden people so that they’re more resistant to change than they would be otherwise.
you’ve already made it clear these people are born this way, and there is no reform for them.
No, that isn’t what I said at all. You can’t make a gay person straight, that’s absolutely true. On the other hand, you can moderate behaviour. Intensive therapy is pretty good at that, as long as a person is willing to change
How is this a problem exactly?
Because it’s counter-productive. It actively makes reform more difficult, and is more costly. And what happens when the conviction is wrong? What happens when the victim has a faulty memory, and the tech in the lab has been falsifying evidence?
They are selfish psychopaths with no care except themselves and would likely do it again since nothing morally stopped them the first time.
Okay, so what’s your cutoff point? We know, with near absolute certainty, that increased speeds in cars are directly linked to both probability and severity of accidents. So isn’t it entirely reasonable to say that a person that’s speeding has demonstrated that they’re a selfish psychopath with no regard for anyone other than their own desires and conveniences, and that, since they weren’t morally stopped by laws in the past, that they deserve no civil rights moving forwards? After all, they’re acting with reckless indifference to the well-being of others, and the fact that they haven’t harmed someone else yet, doesn’t mean that they haven’t demonstrated a willingness to do so in order to get to their destination just a little faster.
Rights are innate, a property of being born, not something granted, or conferred, by government or anyone else. Anything granted by someone else is a privilege, not a right.
Whether one’s rights are constrained via due process is a different question: criminal’s rights are curtailed when they’re jailed after being convicted by a jury of their peers (a right established in US criminal law, to be tried by one’s peers, not just some magistrate, or some land owner).
Methinks you should revisit civics 101.
Rights are innate, a property of being born, not something granted, or conferred, by government or anyone else. Anything granted by someone else is a privilege, not a right
This would make everything a privilege. The only reason rights exist is because governments allow it, so if tomorrow they said we don’t have rights, then what are we going to do about it?
Even the American Bill of Rights has been edited, added to, and have had things removed over time
The fact is rights are a human construct that only exist because of us. The universe or God doesn’t give us rights, government leaders do.
Whether one’s rights are constrained via due process is a different question
The concept of constrained or curtailed rights is a contradiction. If rights are inherent by birth and can not be taken away, then that also means you can not reduce, shorten, or edit them in any way. As that would be a violation of rights that seemingly can not be taken away
Rights aren’t, and shouldn’t be, all or nothing. Criminals, for instance, forfeit certain rights depending on the crime and the jurisdiction. Often they forfeit the right to freedom and end up in prison. In some places, for some crimes, they might even forfeit the right to life and get executed.
But the important things is we have a system for determining what those things are. If, as with your example, we said pedophiles have zero rights, that would mean that anyone would be free to kill them, to steal from them, to torture them, or whatever. That doesn’t seem like a good move for society, especially given the potential for abuse.
If, as with your example, we said pedophiles have zero rights, that would mean that anyone would be free to kill them, to steal from them, to torture them, or whatever.
That’s literal outlawry: being put outside the protection of the law. Anyone being free to kill an outlaw is a feature of outlawry, not a bug.
